‘Now Peter was sitting outside in the court, and a maid came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus the Galilaean.” ’

As Peter was sat in the courtyard in the semi-darkness, surrounded by men who, if they discovered who he was, would, in his view, unquestionably have had him apprehended, he must undoubtedly have been in a state of constant high tension. He was an impulsive and brave man, which was how he came to be there, but he was not good at facing this kind of steady continual pressure. And when a servant girl approached him and said to him, “You also were with Jesus the Galilaean” (this was an expression of contempt, for Galilaeans were despised in Jerusalem. But in contrast we are also expected to recognise that it was in Galilee that the light had shone – Mat 4:16), it all proved too much, and he tried to dismiss the suggestion by indicating that the idea was ludicrous. Most of us would have done something similar in the same situation. He was just evading recognition in the face of danger.

‘A maid came forward to him.’ The verb is the same one as that used of he witnesses who ‘came forward’ against Jesus (Mat 26:60). Peter too was being witnessed against. The ‘also’ used in her accusation may indicate that she knew of the other disciple who had entered the palace. Indeed that would explain how she knew who Peter was. She had after all let him in along with the other disciple who was known to her (Joh 18:15-17).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Peter Denies Jesus Three Times As He Goes In A Continual Downward Spiral (26:69-75).

It is probably not accidental that the mockery of Jesus concerning His being unable to prophesy is now followed by an example of the fulfilment of one of His prophecies (Mat 26:34). Even as they mocked Him one of His prophecies was in process of fulfilment. As ever Jesus will not give ‘signs’. He will not prophesy for the amusement of the guards. But He will use His powers in order to help His own.

For meanwhile Peter, who is in the courtyard in the High Priest’s palace, is undergoing his own kind of trial, and the whole of the account is intended to be read in the light of Mat 10:32-33. ‘Everyone therefore who confesses Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father Who is in Heaven. And whoever will deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father Who is in Heaven.’ The point is being made that by this standard Peter totally fails. And yet even as we note this we should recognise that he must at the time have been under great, almost unbearable, tension, and that as the kind of man who did not find it easy to survive under this kind of pressure, for he was more a man who responded to impulse. Thus he had put himself in a vulnerable position. Furthermore the slow passage of time, and the constant uncertainty as the night dwindled away with him sitting in the semi-darkness among those whom he in his own mind saw as potential enemies and betrayers, must have been adding its own pressure. So when he was approached by a servant girl who identified him, his mind must have frozen, with the result that he automatically blurted out a denial. His courage had failed him. And yet we should call to mind that he still had the courage to remain where he was. When we remember what in his view his fate could well have been if he was exposed that was a courageous thing to do. And the lie was to some extent justifiable in the light of the circumstances, (in his view he was in danger of his life), although Matthew certainly calls it a denial.

He was in fact probably in no actual danger. There were no charges that could be laid against him unless Jesus was convicted of a criminal offence which included His disciples, and all knew that the One Whom all had really wanted to restrain was safely in custody, and had yet to be officially tried. Nor have we any grounds for thinking that they were interested in arresting His disciples, who were probably just looked on as merely deluded. (It would be different once they became the main preachers). And none of the disciples had seemingly been involved in the incident in the Temple. So no one was wanting to arrest the disciples. But that was certainly not how a Peter, shaken by his experiences of the night, saw it. He remembered what had happened in the Garden and he probably feared for his life.

Then a second maid servant identified him. But by this time he had had time to think and there was less excuse, and when he denied it on oath it made the situation even worse. Note how his denial is depicted as having grown deeper. It was even more so the third time when he was partly identified by his accent, and this time by men. Then he took a further step downwards, for then he vociferously and forcefully denied knowing Jesus with cursing and swearing. Fears for his own safety had thus caused him to deny his Master three times in ever growing intensity. And then he heard a cock crow, and what Jesus had said flooded back to him, and racing from the courtyard he found a deserted place and broke down in tears. He could not believe what he had done. So while Jesus was going on triumphantly on His way to the cross without flinching, Peter retired aware that he was a total failure, repenting in bitter tears. He had failed his test. The night belonged to only One person. It is, however, indicative of the mercy of God that shortly afterwards he would become God’s chief spokesman.

Analysis.

a Now Peter was sitting outside in the court (Mat 26:69 a).

b And a maid came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus the Galilaean”, but he denied before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are saying” (Mat 26:69-70).

c And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and says to those who were there, “This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth” (Mat 26:71).

d And again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the man” (Mat 26:72).

c And after a little while those who stood by came and said to Peter, “Of a truth you also are one of them, for your speech exposes you” (Mat 26:73).

b Then he began to curse and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the cock crowed, and Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, “Before the cock crow, you will deny me three times.”

a And he went out, and wept bitterly (Mat 26:75).

Note that in ‘a’ Peter was sitting outside in the court and in the parallel he leaves the court. In ‘b’ he denies Jesus and in the parallel he does likewise, and Peter remembers Jesus’ words. In ‘c’ he is accused of having been with Jesus and in the parallel he is again accused. Centrally he denied Jesus with an oath.

We may also see it as a sequence within an envelope. Thus we have the envelope consisting of ‘a’ and its parallel, which contains a threefold sequence, first ‘b’, then ‘c and d’, and then ‘c’ and ‘b’, in each of which we have the accusation followed by the denial, each of the denials being introduced by ‘I do not know’. Thus:

“You also were with Jesus the Galilaean”, — “I do not know what you are saying.”

“This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth” — he denied with an oath “I do not know the man”.

“Of a truth you also are one of them, for your speech exposes you” — then he began to curse and to swear, “I do not know the man.”

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The denial of Peter:

v. 69. Now Peter sat without in the palace; and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

v. 70. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.

v. 71. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.

v. 72. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the Man.

v. 73. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee.

v. 74. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the Man. And immediately the cock crew.

v. 75. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly.

Peter had found a place in the entrance-hall of the palace, not far from the door of the room where the council was in session, and also near the circle of servants that were warming themselves by the fire in the court. Here one of the maid-servants that had seen him come in made the remark that he was one of the followers of the prisoner. Naturally the servants took the part of their masters against the Galilean, and had undoubtedly been discussing ways and means of removing all His followers. Peter, feeling the bristling in the circle against him, quickly made a denial, more in haste than in deliberate malice. Nevertheless his conscience must have bothered him some, for he now left the circle about the fire and walked back to the arched passageway that led into the court. And again he was accused of being a follower of that Jesus of Nazareth. This time the fear that was beginning to rise in his heart made him unduly emphatic; he confirmed his lie with an oath. But they watched him with suspicion, probably talking the matter over among themselves. And finally, after some time, those that were standing about in the court came up to him, speaking more emphatically. Surely he must be a member of the Nazarene’s band, for there was his Galilean dialect which betrayed him. Here Peter completely lost control of himself. With the most astonishing vehemence he added swearing to cursing in his denial of any and all connection with Jesus. The chances are that his very emphasis confirmed the servants in their supposition, which, however, they did not act upon. But the Lord had not forgotten His weak disciple. It was now the time of cock-crowing, and the lusty crowing of one of them at just this moment recalled to the mind of Peter the prophecy of Jesus concerning his threefold denial of Him. And going out, he wept in bitter repentance over his terrible sin. “Here we should learn, by the example of Peter, our own weakness, that we should not depend too firmly upon other people nor upon ourselves. For our hearts are so utterly weak and uncertain that they change every hour, as the Lord says, Joh 2:24-25. Who would have expected such instability and weakness in Peter? Who would believe that such a courageous man, who holds so firmly to his Lord, would deny Him so shamefully? Watch this example most carefully, in order to know thyself and other people well and to guard against arrogance. For if this could happen to Peter, what do you suppose will happen to us, that are not only much lower, but also much weaker? Therefore it will not do to be secure, but maintain thy fear of God and a very careful lookout on all sides.”

Summary. The Jews complete their conspiracy, and Judas makes ready to betray his Lord, but Jesus accepts the anointing of Mary at Bethany, celebrates the Passover for the last time, institutes the Eucharist, suffers the agony of death in Gethsemane, is betrayed, taken captive, brought before Caiaphas for trial, sentenced, and Revelation led, while Peter denies his Lord three times.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 26:69. Now Peter sat without Our Lord’s trial in the high-priest’s palace, and Peter’s denying him, being contemporary events, might be related the one before the other, according to the historian’s pleasure. St. Matthew and St. Mark describe the trial first, because it is a principal fact. But St. Luke brings it in after the denials. St. John has preserved the exact and natural order: for he begins with the first denial, because it happened immediately after Peter entered the palace; then gives the history of the trial as the principal fact, and concludes with the subsequent denials. The apostles, no doubt, were in great consternation when their Master was apprehended, as appears from their forsaking him. Some of them, however, recovering out of the panic that had seized them, followed the band at a distance, to see what the end would be: of this number was Peter, and another disciple, whom John has mentioned without giving his name, and who therefore is generally supposed to have been John himself, it being the manner of this Evangelist to speak of himself in the third person. See Joh 13:23; Joh 21:20. St. Matthew and St. Mark seem to differ in the account which they give of the place where Peter first denied his Master. St. Matthew says, Peter sat without in the palace; St. Mar 14:66 says that this denial happened as Peter was beneath in the palace. It appears from Joh 18:25 that Peter was with the servants at the fire, when he denied his Master the third time;and from Luk 22:61., that Jesus looked upon Peter, just as he was pronouncing the words of the third denial. Our Lord, therefore, and his disciples were not, the one in the court, and the other in the vestibule of the palace, during his trial, as some have supposed; but they were together in one room, Jesus with his judges at the upper end of it, and Peter with the servants at the fire at the other end. Accordingto this disposition, Peter might be said to have been without in the hall, that is to say, without, in relation to the crowd of judges, witnesses, and soldiers, around Jesus; but in relation to the place where the council sat, he was beneath in the hall, in the lower part of it; a way of speaking common even in our own language. Further, John, Mat 26:18 says, that Peter, after the first denial, stood with the officers at the fire; whereas St. Matthew and St. Luke tell us, that when he first denied his Master, he sat by the fire. It seems the maid’s words had put him into such confusion, that before he answered her, he arose from the seat, which the servants had given him at his first coming in. We learn from St. John, that the damsel who attacked Peter was the who kept the door; it seems, that after having admitted him, she followed him to the fire, and spoke to him in an angry tone, having been informed that it was he who had cut off her fellow-servant’s ear. See Joh 18:17; Joh 18:26. Thou also wast with Jesus, means, when he was apprehended in the garden; to be with, signifies sometimes to be a disciple. The woman, probably, either had some knowledge of Peter before, or was informed by John, or some of those who had been in the garden, that he was one of Christ’s friends. See Mat 26:73. The word Galilee is added by way of distinction, Jesus being a very common name at this time. See Macknight, Grotius, Doddridge.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 26:69 . ] with reference to the interior of the particular building in which the trial of Jesus had been conducted. In Mat 26:58 is used because in that instance Peter went from the street into the court-yard.

] is here used in view of the of Mat 26:71 below. Comp. on Mat 8:19 . Both of them may have seen ( , ) Peter among the followers of Jesus somewhere in Jerusalem, and may have preserved a distinct recollection of his appearance. , in the sense of a female slave , corresponds exactly to our (German) Mdchen ; see Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 239.

, . . .] categorical accusation, as in Mat 26:71 ; Mat 26:73 , and not a question (Klostermann).

.] which specific designation she may have heard applied to the Prisoner. The other slave (Mat 26:71 ) is still more specific, inasmuch as she calls Him .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

SEVENTH SECTION

CHRIST AND PETER

26:6975

(Mar 14:66-72; Luk 22:56-62; Joh 18:15-27)

69Now Peter sat [was sitting] without in the palace [court, ]103 and a damsel 70came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee [the Galilean].104But he denied before them105 all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. 71And when he was gone out into [going toward] the porch, another maid [] saw him, and said unto them106 that were there, This fellow [man, ] was also with Jesus of Nazareth [the 72Nazarene].107 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. 73And after a while came unto him they that stood by [they that stood by came], and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth [betrayeth, or discovereth, ] thee. 74Then began he to curse108 and to swear, saying,109 I know not [I do not know, , as in Mat 26:72] the man. And immediately the [a]110 cock crew. 75And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him [when he said],111Before the [a] cock crow, thou shalt [wilt] deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

On the manner and circumstances under which Peter gained access to the palace of the high-priest, see the Gospel of John.

Mat 26:69. Now Peter was sitting without.The expression must be taken relatively to the interior of the house in which Jesus underwent examination. In Mat 26:58 the term was used, because Peter is represented as going from the street into the court. Meyer.

Mat 26:69. A damsel,i. e., a female slave, as contradistinguished from the other mentioned in Mat 26:71. The former (who, according to Joh 18:17, kept the door) said: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean; the latter: with Jesus the Nazarene. Both maids had gathered their information by hearsay; but, although ignorant, they were malevolently disposed. Probably the statement was made in both cases in malicious banter, or light ridicule, as the charge evidently led to no further consequences.

Mat 26:70. He denied before them all.Before the servants of the high-priest and the officials.I know not what thou sayest.A mode of expression which might be taken is denying the denial: I do not even understand what thou meanest. Of course this, however, implied a denial of the charge itself, although Meyer lays undue emphasis upon it when interpreting it: So far from having been with Him, I do not even know, etc.

Mat 26:71-72. And when he was going out into (toward) the porch.After his first and indirect denial, Peter began to feel the painfulness of his situation, and wished to go away, or at any rate to be nearer the door, so as to secure a retreat. But in order to conceal his intention of leaving, he continued still for a short time in the porch. Accordingly, he went from the court or , which enclosed the house, toward the porch. In our opinion, the refers to the same as the in Mar 14:68 (which Meyer denies). It was then that, according to Mark, Peter denied Jesus a second time, after having risen from warming himself at the fire. Another maid saw him (when going away), and (following him) said unto them that were there (probably the guard at the gate): This one was also with Jesus the Nazarene. Then the second distinct denial ensued, confirmed by an oath, and by the contemptuous expression: I do not know the man. The circumstance that Peter made use of an oath is recorded by Matthew alone. The particle probably refers to the confirmation by the oath.

Mat 26:73. And after a while, they that stood by came and said to Peter.Primarily referring to those who had been at the gate. But the language of the text does not prevent our understanding it to mean, that in the interval a number of persons had come from the court and joined the group. In fact, according to Luke, a considerable interval had elapsed, before general attention had been called forth and fixed on Peter.Surely thou also art one of them.An oath against the oath of Peter.For thy speech also betrayeth thee.Beside other circumstances, by which the maid recognized thee. The pronunciation, the dialect, of the Galilans was defective in the utterance of the gutturals, so that no distinction was perceptible between , ,. Besides, the Galilns also pronounced the like . De Wette. The pronunciation of the people of Galilee was uncouth and indistinct; hence they were not allowed to read aloud in the Jewish synagogues. The Talmudists relate a number of amusing anecdotes about the curious misunderstandings occasioned by the indistinctness of pronunciation in Galilee. See Friedlieb, p. 84.

Mat 26:74. Then began he.He meets and out does the asseveration Surely, used by the servants, by beginning to invoke curses on himself and to swear.

Mat 26:74. And immediately a cock crew.De Wette: The statement in Mishna, Baba Kama vi. 7, that fowls were not allowed to be kept in Jerusalem, is probably incorrect. It is contrary to what is related in Hieros. Erubin, fol. 26, cp. 1; comp. Lightfoot ad v. 34.It was indeed contrary to the Levitical law of purity to keep fowls in Jerusalem, because these animals pick their food in dirt and mud, and might thus occasion the defilement of sacrifices and other dedicated offerings. But is it likely that the Roman soldiers in the castle of Antonia would care for such Jewish ordinances? And even with reference to the Jews, we read that the Sanhedrin had on one occasion ordered a cock to be stoned, because it had picked out the eyes of a little child, and thereby caused its death. (Sepp, Leben Jesu, iii. 475.)Plinius observes that the second crowing of the cock (gallicinium) took place during the fourth watch of the night Friedlieb, p. 81.

Mat 26:75. Thou wilt thrice deny Me.Bengel has, in his Gnomon, given the following satisfactory explanation of the fact, that the Gospels speak only of a threefold denial on the part of Peter: Abnegatio ad plures plurium interrogations, facta uno paroxysmo, pro una numeratur. By dint of that pressure of the letter at the expense of the import and spirit of history, which is so common with a certain school of critics (Leben Jesu, ii. 3, 1490), Strauss and Paulus have maintained that the Gospels record more than three denials on the part of Peter (Paulus speaks of eight distinct denials). But a closer inquiry shows that the three occasions are specially and separately enumerated in the Gospels:

First denial.Immediately on entering the palace, Joh 18:17, and on the charge of the maid who kept the door. According to Matthew (Mat 26:69), in the court; according to John and Mark, at the fire, where the servants warmed themselves; according to Luke, by the light of the fire.

Second denial.According to Johns narrative, Peter was still standing by the fire and warming himself, probably with the design of covering a speedy retreat by assuming the appearance of unconcern. According to Matthew, he was now about to leave, when another maid attacked him, and people gathered around him in the porch. Luke reports one of these bystanders as already expressing the general feeling in the words: Thou art also of them.

Third denial.Again Peter had tarried for some time in the porch. The false oath which he had taken had allayed the rising indignation of the people, when another fancied that he recognized him by his speech. Soon the servants declared that his speech betrayed him. Such a recognition would involve imminent peril of life. For, according to John, a relative of Malchus maintained that he had seen him in the garden with Jesus. Then Peter began to curse and swear, and immediately the cock crew (a second time), reminding and warning him. It appears that he had scarcely given any heed to the first crowing of the cock (Mark).

[On the different accounts of the threefold denial of Peter compare also the tables in the Greek and English Harmonies, Andrews Life of our Lord, p. 491 sqq., and the remarks of Alford on Mat 26:69-75; Mat 26:4 th ed. (p. 268 sqq.). These minor variations with essential coincidences prove the independence of the Evangelists and confirm the truth of their narrative. Whether we can arrange them or not, being thoroughly persuaded of the holy truthfulness of the Evangelists, and of the divine guidance under which they wrote, our faith is in no way shaken by such discrepancies. We value them rather, as testimonies to independence: and are sure, that if for one moment we could be put in complete possession of all the details as they happened, each account would find its justification, and the reasons of all the variations would disappear. And this I firmly believe will one day be the case. Alford (p. 269, in the 4th edition, where he corrects the errors of the corresponding note in the former edition).P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. This picture of the denial of the Lord as exhibited by the fall of that disciple who had been the first to confess Christ, has its peculiar and eternal import in the history of the Church. Hence we should study it: 1. In the source and antecedents of this denial; 2. in its various phases and stages; 3. in the repentance which followed, and which led to the only true and lasting spiritual confession.
2. The fall of Peter a significant type of the Romish Church.
3. The look of the Lord, recorded in the Gospel of Luke, in its historical and in its eternal, ideal import for the Church.
4. The deep sorrow and suffering of the Lord caused by the denial of Peter, in its lasting import for the Church.
5. Peter went out into the black night, but not as Judas into the darkness of despair. Weeping bitterly, he awaited the dawn of another and a better morning. The angel of mercy accompanied him on that heavy road to spiritual self-condemnation which issued in the death of his old man, more especially of his former pride and self-confidence. And thus it came that he really accompanied Christ unto death, though in a very different and much better sense than he had intended. His repentance had to be completed,he had to obtain peace and reconciliation from the mouth of Christ Himself, before he could offer the requisite satisfaction for his guilt toward man by making such a grand confession as would efface and obliterate the offence of his grand denial. It deserves special notice, that this progress of repentance and conversion in the case of Peter may serve as the prototype of the economy of genuine grace; while this procedure was reversed in the case of Judas, who wished first to offer human satisfaction before those enemies whose guilt he had shared, but who failed, in that manner, to come to Christ.
[6. Wordsworth: Even soon after he had received the Holy Communion Peter denied his Master. But he repented and was pardoned. Hence then we may confute the Novatians, who refuse to restore those who fall into grievous sin after Baptism and the Holy Communion. And St. Peters sin, and the sins of other saints, are written in Holy Scripture that we may not be high-minded, but fear; and that when we fall into sin we may repent. The grace given in the Holy Communion was improved by St. Peter into the means of godly repentance; but it was perverted by Judas to his own destruction. It was used as medicine by the one; and was abused into poison by the other. But the presence of Judas at the institution of the Lords Supper is a matter of critical uncertainty (comp. John versus Luke) and of inherent improbability. The weight of patristic authority is in favor of his presence; but some of the best modern harmonists and commentators, as Meyer, Tischendorf, Robinson, Lichtenstein, Lange, Wieseler, Ellicott, and Andrews, deny it, and assume that the traitor left the paschal supper before the institution of the eucharist, for which in Johns narrative we can find no place for insertion prior to the departure of Judas.P. S.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Internal connection between the denial of Peter and the condemnation and injuries which Christ suffered at the hands of His enemies.The denial of a disciple the most poignant sorrow to the Lord in the midst of His confession.The Faithful Witness and the unfaithful disciple.The denial of Peter intervening between his former and his later confession, or different kinds of confession.The causes of the denial of Peter: 1. Self-exaltation on account of his former confession; 2. a morbid desire after confession beyond the measure of the strength of his faith; 3. want of sufficient maturity for the confession in life and in deed.The giddiness and the stumbling of Peter, before his actual fall: 1. He underrated and neglected the warnings of Jesus; 2. he exalted himself above his fellow-disciples; 3. he neglected the proper preparation by watching and prayer; 4. he voluntarily and presumptuously rushed into danger.How it deserves special notice, in the fall of Peter, that he had
attempted to come forward as a witness for Christ with a conscience that was not void of blame and offence.The sad after-history of the sword assault upon Malchus; or, how frequently times of fanatical defence of the faith are followed by seasons of open denial.How it could come to pass that a poor maid, standing at the gate, could terrify into a denial him to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven had been promised.The triumph of the fear of man over that of God the source of denial.He who tempts the Lord is on the way to deny Him.The fatal boldness which rushes into the battle-field without having been sent: 1. Its portraiture as here presented: it wants a proper call, proper weapons, and proper spiritual courage. 2. Its fate: despondency, defeat, and the most imminent peril of soul.How those who confess Jesus have to endure the most varied temptations to deny Him.How the children of the world and the ministers of darkness combine, in the spirit of the evil one, to change our confession into a denial of Christ.The unfailing mark of the disciples in their language and tone, also the indication of their fate: 1. It is to their highest spiritual benefit, if they are faithful; 2. or, again, to their shame and confusion, when they turn aside from the Lord.The gradation of guilt in the denial of Peter: 1. Ambiguous evasion (a supposed unimportant falsehood); 2. distinct denial with a false oath: I know not the man (contemptuously); 3. awful abjuration, with solemn imprecations upon himself.Every ban pronounced upon genuine Christians, an imprecation, in confirmation of the denial of Christ.Peter did not wish to forsake the Lord, but he would fain have attempted to save both Jesus and himself by crafty policy.In his view, everything formed part of this policy: the evasion, the false oath, and even the imprecations, were intended to carry out this plan.How, as the Faithful Witness, the Lord has expiated even the denials of His honest disciples, into which they have fallen through weakness.How the faithfulness of Christ alone restores the unfaithful servant from imminent judgment: 1. Only His faithfulness: (a) in His gracious warning; (b) in His look of compassion and love; (c) in giving that warning and rousing sign (the crowing of the cock); (d) in His readiness to restore again the fallen disciple. 2. Blessed effects of that faithfulness on the part of Jesus: He went out, and wept bitterly.The warning tokens in nature, as accompanying the warning and rousing voice of the Spirit.The repentance of Peter a constant call to repentance in the Church.The marks of genuine repentance: 1. All the pride of self-righteousness ceases and is given up; 2. it is connected with a going out from the world; 3. it is characterized by a going forth with tears through night to light.Bitter weeping, or a broken and contrite heart, the evidence of reconciling grace.How the humiliation of the heart and the grace of our God always meet as eye to eye: 1. True humiliation and humility find no other resting-place than the loftiest height, even the grace of God; 2. the grace of God descends and rests only in the lowest depth, even the broken and contrite heart.Divine grace transforming the fall of Peter, as formerly that of David, into the introduction to a genuine and thorough conversion.Will the so-called Romish Peter ever go forth from the palace of the high-priest, where he has denied Jesus, to weep bitterly?

Starke:Hedinger: Self-confidence and presumption bring sorrow.Marginal Note by Luther: Peter may have thought that his untruth could not injure any person, while it might profit him and insure his safety, and hence that it was lawful, or at least a matter of small moment; but he soon experienced what consequences the commencement of sin entailed.Canstein: The fear of death.Zeisius: Observe how sin grows and increases when it is not resisted. Therefore, be very careful to resist it in its commencement.To stumble is human, to rise again Christian, to persevere in sin is devilish.

Lisco:The denial of Peter.1. Its source, (a) Its more remote occasion: (aa) transgression of the injunction of Jesus, Joh 13:36; (bb) neglect of the admonition, Mat 26:41. (b) Its deeper ground: (aa) unbelief in the word of the Lord, Mat 26:36; (bb) confidence in the strength of his love to Jesus and in his own firmness of will; (cc) proud presumption in the midst of danger. 2. The denial itself, (a) Manifestation of his fear of man, thoughtless haste, and impotence. (b) Starting-point: a lie. (c) Gradual and increasing development: at first merely a denial, then a false oath, and at last imprecations upon himself. 3. The conversion, (a) The crowing of a cock and the look of Jesus awaken him to a sense of the real state of matters. (b) He perceives the truthfulness and faithfulness of Jesus, and his own weakness, (c) Godly sorrow and repentance.Thus we also learn from this history, how a man may be restored after having sadly declined and fallen into grievous sin.

Heubner:Peter was here in the midst of a multitude of the ungodly.The disciples of Christ cannot be long hid when among the men of this world.Isa 19:18 : the language of Canaan.The more poignant our repentance, the more sweet and precious afterward the enjoyment of grace.Wherein consisted the denial of Peter? 1. It was not a determined denial of the heart, nor a final or thorough renunciation of Jesus; 2. it was a concealment of his faith and allegiance, a denial of his discipleship.Survey of the conduct of Peter: 1. It involved deep guilt; 2. grade of that guilt(a) not a sin of malicious intent, (b) but of weakness.In the sin of Peter, Jesus had to bear our human weaknesses.Application: 1. The fall of Peter reminds us of the weakness of our own hearts, against which we must always be on our guard, despite our better feelings and aspirations; 2. a call to self-examination; 3. we must learn to place our whole confidence in the grace and intercession of Jesus. Hold fast your faith.

Braune:Even down to the maid who guarded the gate, the servants of the high-priest were involved in the sin and injury committed against the Saviour.Peter wished to do better than the other disciples, who all forsook Jesus and fled, but fell lower than they.The world knows well how to remind us of such sword-cut, or how to avenge supposed or real injury.These Jewish servants seem to have been proud of their pure pronunciation of the language; similarly, most of us try to shine and to outshine others.After that, Peter also strengthened his brethren, as the Lord commanded him.Godly sorrow worketh, etc.From the Lord Jesus comes forgiveness of sin.

H. Mller:Peter warms his hands and feet, while in the meantime, however, the heart freezes so far as the love of Jesus is concerned.If a man for-sakes the way in which the Lord calls him to walk, and seems to slink into corners, etc, he is outside of Gods protection, and the devil has power over himIf thy foot offend thee, etc.He who warms himself by the fire of the ungodly, will deny Christ along with the ungodly.Ahlfeld:He that walks in his own strength, will assuredly meet with a speedy fall.Kapff:Why did Peter recover from his fall, and not ?Judges 1. Because their sins differed; 2. because their repentance differed.

[Quesnel:Every one carries in him the possibility of renouncing Christ.There is nothing on which we can depend but the grace of God.One temptation unresisted seldom fails of bringing on another and a third.Peter joins perjury to infidelity. Let the example of an apostle make us tremble.A small matter (a mean servant) makes us fall when God does not support us; a small matter (the crowing of a cock) raises us again, when His grace makes use of it.P. S.]

[Burkitt:The denial of Peter: 1. The sin: (a) a lie; (b) an oath (perjury); (c) an anathema and curse. 2. The occasion of it: (a) Peter followed Christ afar off, from fear and frailty; (b) he kept bad company with the enemies of Christ; (c) presumptuous confidence in his own strength and standing. 3. The repetition of the sin. If we yield to one temptation, Satan will assault us with more, and stronger: progress from bare denial to perjury and thus to imprecation. 4. The aggravating circumstances: (a) the person thus falling, a disciple, an apostle, the chief apostle, a special favorite of Christ; (b) the person denied, his Master, his Saviour and Redeemer, who just before had washed his feet and given him the sacrament; (c) the company of high-priests, and scribes, and elders, and their servants before whom Peter denied his Master; (d) the time of the denial, but a few hours after the communion; (e) the smallness of the temptation: a mere question of a servant girl, a door-keeper. Ah, Peter, how unlike thyself art thou at this time, not a rock, but a reed, a pillar blown down by a womans breath. O frail humanity, whose strength is weakness!In most of the saints falls recorded in Scripture, either the first inciters or the accidental occasions were women. Adam, Lot, Sampson, David, Solomon, Peter. A weak creature may be a strong tempter.The recovery and repentance of Peter: 1. Its suddenness. His sin was hasty and sudden under a violent passion of fear, contrary to his settled purpose, and hence much sooner repented of. 2. The means of his repentance: (a) the crowing of a cock; (b) Christs looking upon Peter with an eye of mercy and pity which melted his heart and dissolved it into tears; (c) Peters remembrance of Christs prediction with a close application of it to his conscience. The manner of his repentance: (a) it was secret, he went out (vere dolet qui sine teste dolet; solitariness is most agreeable to an afflicted spirit); (b) sincere, he wept bitterly; (c) lasting and abiding, showing its effect on the whole subsequent life of Peter. History (tradition) reports, that ever after, when St. Peter heard the crowing of a cock, he fell upon his knees and mourned; others say, that he was wont to rise at midnight and spend the time in penitent devotion between cock-crowing and day-light. And the Papists, who love to turn everything into superstition, began that practice of setting a cock upon the top of towers, and steeples, and chimneys, to put the people in mind of this sin of Peter and his repentance by that signal. (d) The repentance of peter was attended with an extraordinary zeal for the service as Christ to the end of his life.P. S.]

[Similar reflections and improvements in Matthew Henry, Gill, Doddridge, A. Clarke, Th. Scott, and other practical English commentators. We add the last of the Practical Observations of Thomas Scott: If any have fallen even in the most dreadful manner, let them think of Peters recovery and not despair; and let them recollect the words of Christ, as well as their own sins; that their tears, confessions, and humiliations may be mingled with hope. And let us all frequently remember oar past follies, and manifold instances of ingratitude; that we may learn watchfulness, humility, caution, and compassion for the tempted and fallen, by the experience of our own numerous mistakes, sins, and recoveries.P. S.]

Footnotes:

[103]Mat 26:69.[The , without, plainly shows that ; cannot mean here the palace itself, but the interior, quadrangular and open hall, or court-yard, to which there was a passage (sometimes arched) from the front part of the house, called or , Mat 26:71; Mar 14:68. See Crit. Note on Mat 26:3, p. 459. The place where the Saviour stood before Caiaphas was probably an audience-room on the ground-floor, in the rear or on the side of the court-yard.P. S.]

[104]Mat 26:69.[Literally after the Greek: , which, in the mouth of the enemies of Christ in Juda, had a contemptuous meaning. So Julian the Apostate used to call Christ, and he is reported (although on insufficient authority) to have died with the exclamation: Galilean, thou hast conquered!P. S.]

[105]Mat 26:70.The is doubtful, as many authorities are against it. Still the fact that it is more difficult, speaks in its favor, inasmuch as the are not mentioned. [The English Version italicizes it; it may as well be omitted, being superfluous.]

[106]Mat 26:71. [for ] is best supported.

[107]Mat 26:71.[ has a similar contemptuous meaning as , Mat 26:69, and Nazarans, as well as Galilans became nicknames of the Christians.P. S.]

[108]Mat 26:74.[To curse is somewhat ambiguous for . The meaning is: he invoked curses on himself in confirmation of the truth of his assertion. Lange: Da fing er an mit Bannfluch (Verwnschung) und Eidsich zu verchwren.P. S.]

[109]Mat 26:74.[This interpolation should be omitted, since it destroys the proper connection, and gives a false sense to the preceding words. (Conant.)P. S.]

[110]Mat 26:74.[All the four Evangelists omit the definite article before for the reason stated in the note on Mat 26:34, p.478.P. S.]

[111]Mat 26:75.[ , quod dixerat, in the Vulgate and Syriac Version. To refer it to ,, as in the English Version, would require . The best authorities omit , but Lange retains it. P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

“Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. (70) But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. (71) And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. (72) And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. (73) And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. (74) Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. (75) And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.”

Luke, hath related the denial of Peter in yet some more remarkable circumstances than either of the other Evangelists. I therefore shall postpone the interesting consideration of Peter’s fall, and his recovery by grace, until we come to Luke’s Gospel. See Luk 22:54 , etc.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

Ver. 69. And a damsel came unto him ] A silly wench daunteth and dispiriteth this stout champion. Sic et Elias ille fulminator ad mulierculae (Iesabelis) minas trepidat, factus seipso imbecillior. (Bucholcer.) What poor things the best of us are, when left a little to ourselves, when our faith is in the wane! Regulus erat cum audebat omnium audacissimus: cum timebat, omnium timidissimus; sic et Petrus.

Thou also wast with Jesus ] She was just of her master’s mind and making. We had need take heed where we set our children to service; for, like water on a table, they will be led any way with a wet finger; and as any liquid matter, they will conform to the vessel whereinto they are poured. Be sure to teach them God’s fear, and to pray, and then wherever they come to live, they shall do good, and find favour, as the captive children did in the court of Babylon, Dan 1:9 , and as the Hebrew girl did in Naaman’s family; that great lord lighted his candle at his handmaid’s coal; so good a thing is it to acquaint our children with the works of God, with the praises of his prophets.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

69 75. ] OUR LORD IS THRICE DENIED BY PETER. Mar 14:66-72 .Luk 22:56-62Luk 22:56-62 . Joh 18:17-18 ; Joh 18:25-27 . This narrative furnishes one of the clearest instances of the entire independency of the four Gospels of one another . In it, they all differ, and, supposing the denial to have taken place thrice , and only thrice , cannot be literally harmonized. The following table may serve to shew what the agreements are, and what the differences:

MATTHEW. MARK. LUKE. 1st denial. Sitting in the hall without, is charged by a maid servant with having been with Jesus the Galilan. ‘I know not what thou sayest.’ Warming himself in the hall below, &c. as Matt. goes out into the vestibule the cock crows. ‘I know not, neither understand what thou sayest.’ Sitting is recognized by the maid and charged replies, ‘Woman, I know Him not.’ Is recognized by the porteress on being introduced by the other disciple. ‘Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?’ He saith, ‘I am not.’ 2nd denial. He has gone out into the porch another maid sees him. ‘This man also was with Jesus of Naz [178] ’ He denies with an oath, ‘I do not know the man.’ [178] Nazianzenus, Gregory, fl. 370 389 The same maid (possibly: but see note, p. 284, Col 1:1-29 , line 34) sees him again, and says, ‘This man is of them.’ He denies again. Another (but a male servant) says: ‘Thou also art of them.’ Peter said, ‘Man, I am not.’ Is standing and warming himself. They said to him, ‘Art not thou also of His disciples?’ He denied, and said, ‘I am not.’ 3rd denial. After a little while, the standers-by say, ‘Surely thou art of them; for thy dialect be-trayeth thee.’ He began to curse and to swear: ‘I know not the man.’ As Matt. ‘Surely thou art of them: for thou art also a Galilan.’ After about an hour, another persisted saying, ‘Truly this man was with Him, for he is a Galilan.’ Peter said, ‘Man, I know not what thou sayest.’ One of the slaves of the High-priest, his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, says, ‘Did I not see thee in the garden with Him?’ Peter then denied again. Immediately the cock crew, and Peter remembered, &c. and going out he wept bitterly. A second time the cock crew, and Peter remembered, &c. and he wept. Immediately while he was yet speaking the cock crew, and the Lord turned and looked on Peter, and Peter remembered, &c. and going out he wept bitterly. Immediately the cock crew. On this table I would make the following remarks: that generally , (1) supposing the four accounts to be entirely independent of one another , we are not bound to require accordance , nor would there in all probability be any such accordance, in the recognitions of Peter by different persons . These may have been many on each occasion of denial, and independent narrators may have fixed on different ones among them. (2) No reader who is not slavishly bound to the inspiration of the letter, will require that the actual words spoken by Peter should in each case be identically reported . See the admirable remarks of Aug [179] cited on ch. Mat 8:25 : and remember, that the substantive fact of a denial remains the same, whether , , or are reported to have been Peter’s answer. (3) I do not see that we are obliged to limit the narrative to three sentences from Peter’s mouth, each expressing a denial, and no more . On three occasions during the night he was recognized , on three occasions he was a denier of his Lord: such a statement may well embrace reiterated expressions of recognition , and reiterated and importunate denials , on each occasion. And these remarks being taken into account, I premise that all difficulty is removed from the synopsis above given: the only resulting inferences being, (a) that the narratives are genuine truthful accounts of facts underlying them all : and (b) that they are, and must be, absolutely and entirely independent of one another . For (1) the four accounts of the FIRST denial are remarkably coincident. In all four , Peter was in the outer hall, where the fire was made (see on Mat 26:69 ): a maid servant (Matt., Mark, Luke), the maid servant who kept the door (John) taxed him (in differing words in each , the comparison of which is very instructive) with being a disciple of Jesus: in all four he denies, again in differing words. I should be disposed to think this first recognition to have been but one , and the variations to be owing to the independence of the reports. (2) In the narratives of the SECOND denial, our first preliminary remark is well exemplified. The same maid (Mark possibly: but not necessarily perhaps, only the in the ) another maid (Matt.), another ( male ) servant (Luke), the standers-by generally (John), charged him: again, in differing words. It seems he had retreated from the fire as if going to depart altogether (see note, Mat 26:69 ), and so attracted the attention both of the group at the fire and of the porteress. It would appear to me that for some reason, John was not so precisely informed of the details of this as of the other denials. The “ going out ” (Matt., Mark) is a superadded detail, of which the “ standing and warming himself ” (John) does not seem to be possessed. (3) On the THIRD occasion, the standers-by recognize him as a Galilan ( simply , Mark (txt.), Luke: by his dialect , Matt., an interesting additional particular), and a kinsman of Malchus crowns the charge by identifying him in a way which might have proved most perilous, had not Peter immediately withdrawn. This third time again, his denials are differently reported: but here, which is most interesting, we have in Matt. and Mark’s “ he began to curse and to swear ” a very plain intimation, that he spoke not one sentence only , but a succession of vehement denials . It will be seen, that the main fallacy which pervaded the note in my first edition, was that of requiring the recognitions , and the recognizers , in each case, to have been identical in the four . Had they been thus identical, in a case of this kind, the four accounts must have sprung from a common source , or have been corrected to one another : whereas their present varieties and coincidences are most valuable as indications of truthful independence . What I wish to impress on the minds of my readers is, that in narratives which have sprung from such truthful independent accounts, they must be prepared sometimes (as e.g. in the details of the day of the Resurrection) for discrepancies which, at our distance, we cannot satisfactorily arrange : now and then we may, as in this instance, be able to do so with something like verisimilitude: in some cases, not at all . But whether we can thus arrange them or not, being thoroughly persuaded of the holy truthfulness of the Evangelists, and of the divine guidance under which they wrote, our faith is in no way shaken by such discrepancies. We value them rather, as testimonies to independence: and are sure, that if for one moment we could be put in complete possession of all the details as they happened , each account would find its justification, and the reasons of all the variations would appear. And this I firmly believe will one day be the case. (See the narrative of Peter’s denials ably treated in an article on my former note, in the “Christian Observer” for Feb. 1853.)john.

[179] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

69. ] “An oriental house is usually built round a quadrangular interior court; into which there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house, closed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with a small wicket for single persons, kept by a porter. In the text, the interior court, often paved or flagged, and open to the sky, is the where the attendants made a fire; and the passage beneath the front of the house from the street to this court, is the or . The place where Jesus stood before the High-priest may have been an open room or place of audience on the ground-floor, in the rear or on one side of the court; such rooms, open in front, being customary.” Robinson, Notes to Harmony, p. 225.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 26:69-75 . Peter’s denial (Mar 14:66-72 , Luk 22:54-62 ). The discrepancies of the four accounts here are perplexing but not surprising. It would be difficult for any one present in the confused throng gathered within the palace gate that night to tell exactly what happened. Peter himself, the hero of the tale, had probably only hazy recollections of some particulars, and might not always relate the incident in the same way. Harmonistic efforts are wasted time. Comparative exegesis may partly explain how one narrative, say Mt.’s, arose out of another, e.g. , Mk.’s (Weiss, Marcus-Evang.). But on the whole it is best to take each version by itself, as one way of telling a story, which in the main is accepted even by writers like Brandt as one of the certainties of the Passion history.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 26:69 . .: resumes the Peter-episode introduced at Mat 26:58 . , was sitting, while the judicial proceedings were going on. , here means the court, atrium ; the trial would take place in a chamber within the buildings surrounding the court. ., one servant girl, to distinguish from another referred to in Mat 26:71 ( ). , you too, as if she had seen Jesus in company with His disciples, Peter one of them, recognisable again, perhaps during the last few days. : He a Galilean; you, too, by your tongue.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 26:69-75

69Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a servant-girl came to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” 70But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about.” 71When he had gone out to the gateway, another servant-girl saw him and said to those who were there, ” This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” 72And again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man.” 73A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.” 74Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know the man!” And immediately a rooster crowed. 75And Peter remembered the words which Jesus had said, “Before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.

Mat 26:69-73 The exact order of these three accusations differs from Gospel to Gospel. The fact that Peter denied Jesus three times with successive emphasis is common to all of the accounts. The fact that they differ is evidence of eyewitness accounts, not historical inaccuracies.

Mat 26:71 “Jesus of Nazareth” See Special Topic at Mat 2:23.

Mat 26:72 “I do not know the man” This Greek idiom was a veiled statement of contempt.

Mat 26:73 “for even the way you talk gives you away” Those who lived in Galilee could be recognized by the differences in accent and pronunciation of the guttural sounds of the Aramaic language.

Mat 26:74 “Then he began to curse and swear, ‘I do not know the man'” This again was an idiom which reflected contempt and is tragic in that he used God’s name in affirming this lie. If anyone deserved to be damned, it is Peter for, in the face of such love, forgiveness, prophecy and miracles, he denied, three times with vehemence and an oath, the One whom he claimed to love. If Peter can be saved, anyone can be saved! The only difference between Peter and Judas was that Judas did not turn back to Jesus in faith.

“And immediately a rooster crowed” This must have been a Roman rooster for the Jews were not allowed to keep chickens in Jerusalem because they caused the ground to be unholy (see note on Mat 26:34).

From Luk 22:61, we know that Jesus looked at Peter. This implies that Annas and Caiaphas lived in the same house and that Jesus could either see the courtyard or He was being transferred between the two residences.

Mat 26:75 “And he went out and wept bitterly” Peter was fulfilling prophecy in his denials and giving hope for all believers who have denied Jesus with their tongue, with their lives and with their priorities. There is hope for anyone who turns back to Him in faith (cf. John 21).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Now Peter, &c. See App-160on Peter’s denials.

sat = was sitting.

a damsel. Greek. one damsel. Because another is to be mentioned (Mat 26:71).

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

69-75.] OUR LORD IS THRICE DENIED BY PETER. Mar 14:66-72. Luk 22:56-62. Joh 18:17-18; Joh 18:25-27. This narrative furnishes one of the clearest instances of the entire independency of the four Gospels of one another. In it, they all differ, and, supposing the denial to have taken place thrice, and only thrice, cannot be literally harmonized. The following table may serve to shew what the agreements are, and what the differences:-

MATTHEW. MARK. LUKE.

1st denial. Sitting in the hall without, is charged by a maid servant with having been with Jesus the Galilan. I know not what thou sayest. Warming himself in the hall below,-&c. as Matt.-goes out into the vestibule-the cock crows. I know not, neither understand what thou sayest. Sitting is recognized by the maid and charged-replies, Woman, I know Him not. Is recognized by the porteress on being introduced by the other disciple. Art not thou also one of this mans disciples? He saith, I am not.

2nd denial. He has gone out into the porch-another maid sees him. This man also was with Jesus of Naz[178] He denies with an oath, I do not know the man. [178] Nazianzenus, Gregory, fl. 370-389 The same maid (possibly: but see note, p. 284, Col 1:1-29, line 34) sees him again, and says, This man is of them. He denies again. Another (but a male servant) says: Thou also art of them. Peter said, Man, I am not. Is standing and warming himself. They said to him, Art not thou also of His disciples? He denied, and said, I am not.

3rd denial. After a little while, the standers-by say, Surely thou art of them; for thy dialect be-trayeth thee. He began to curse and to swear: I know not the man. As Matt. Surely thou art of them: for thou art also a Galilan. After about an hour, another persisted saying, Truly this man was with Him, for he is a Galilan. Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. One of the slaves of the High-priest, his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, says, Did I not see thee in the garden with Him? Peter then denied again.

Immediately the cock crew, and Peter remembered, &c.-and going out he wept bitterly. A second time the cock crew, and Peter remembered, &c.-and he wept. Immediately while he was yet speaking the cock crew, and the Lord turned and looked on Peter, and Peter remembered, &c.-and going out he wept bitterly. Immediately the cock crew.

On this table I would make the following remarks:-that generally,-(1) supposing the four accounts to be entirely independent of one another,-we are not bound to require accordance, nor would there in all probability be any such accordance, in the recognitions of Peter by different persons. These may have been many on each occasion of denial, and independent narrators may have fixed on different ones among them. (2) No reader who is not slavishly bound to the inspiration of the letter, will require that the actual words spoken by Peter should in each case be identically reported. See the admirable remarks of Aug[179] cited on ch. Mat 8:25 : and remember, that the substantive fact of a denial remains the same, whether , , or are reported to have been Peters answer. (3) I do not see that we are obliged to limit the narrative to three sentences from Peters mouth, each expressing a denial, and no more. On three occasions during the night he was recognized,-on three occasions he was a denier of his Lord: such a statement may well embrace reiterated expressions of recognition, and reiterated and importunate denials, on each occasion. And these remarks being taken into account, I premise that all difficulty is removed from the synopsis above given: the only resulting inferences being, (a) that the narratives are genuine truthful accounts of facts underlying them all: and (b) that they are, and must be, absolutely and entirely independent of one another. For (1) the four accounts of the FIRST denial are remarkably coincident. In all four, Peter was in the outer hall, where the fire was made (see on Mat 26:69): a maid servant (Matt., Mark, Luke),-the maid servant who kept the door (John) taxed him (in differing words in each, the comparison of which is very instructive) with being a disciple of Jesus: in all four he denies, again in differing words. I should be disposed to think this first recognition to have been but one, and the variations to be owing to the independence of the reports. (2) In the narratives of the SECOND denial, our first preliminary remark is well exemplified. The same maid (Mark possibly: but not necessarily-perhaps, only the in the )-another maid (Matt.), another (male) servant (Luke), the standers-by generally (John), charged him: again, in differing words. It seems he had retreated from the fire as if going to depart altogether (see note, Mat 26:69), and so attracted the attention both of the group at the fire and of the porteress. It would appear to me that for some reason, John was not so precisely informed of the details of this as of the other denials. The going out (Matt., Mark) is a superadded detail, of which the standing and warming himself (John) does not seem to be possessed. (3) On the THIRD occasion, the standers-by recognize him as a Galilan (simply, Mark (txt.), Luke: by his dialect, Matt., an interesting additional particular),-and a kinsman of Malchus crowns the charge by identifying him in a way which might have proved most perilous, had not Peter immediately withdrawn. This third time again, his denials are differently reported:-but here, which is most interesting, we have in Matt. and Marks he began to curse and to swear a very plain intimation, that he spoke not one sentence only, but a succession of vehement denials. It will be seen, that the main fallacy which pervaded the note in my first edition, was that of requiring the recognitions, and the recognizers, in each case, to have been identical in the four. Had they been thus identical, in a case of this kind, the four accounts must have sprung from a common source, or have been corrected to one another: whereas their present varieties and coincidences are most valuable as indications of truthful independence. What I wish to impress on the minds of my readers is, that in narratives which have sprung from such truthful independent accounts, they must be prepared sometimes (as e.g. in the details of the day of the Resurrection) for discrepancies which, at our distance, we cannot satisfactorily arrange: now and then we may, as in this instance, be able to do so with something like verisimilitude:-in some cases, not at all. But whether we can thus arrange them or not, being thoroughly persuaded of the holy truthfulness of the Evangelists, and of the divine guidance under which they wrote, our faith is in no way shaken by such discrepancies. We value them rather, as testimonies to independence: and are sure, that if for one moment we could be put in complete possession of all the details as they happened, each account would find its justification, and the reasons of all the variations would appear. And this I firmly believe will one day be the case. (See the narrative of Peters denials ably treated in an article on my former note, in the Christian Observer for Feb. 1853.)john.

[179] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 26:69. , one maid-servant) The temptation was not great, if you consider only the interrogatrix; far greater, if you consider all who were present. [She feared lest it might bring her into trouble, if she were to admit any one of our Lords followers, and on this ground she took Peter to task; the others took up the matter after her. None of them appear to have intended to bring Peter into danger. Careless worldlings frequently produce greater harm or advantage to the saints than they suppose or intend-B. G. V.]-, for the ordinary , thou wast. Thus also the LXX. in Psa 9:14.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 26:69-75

3. PETER’S THREE DENIALS;

JESUS BEFORE PILATE;

THE DEATH OF JUDAS

Mat 26:69 to Mat 27:10

69-75 Now Peter was sitting without in the court.-Parallel records are found in Mar 14:66-68; Luk 22:55-57; Joh 18:18 of Peter’s denials. These denials were made during the trials of Jesus before Annas and the Sanhedrin. The first denial was made in the apartment of Annas; John was acquainted with the high priest and had passed in, but afterwards returned and brought Peter into the vestibule by requesting the maidservant who kept the door to let Peter through. She noticed Peter at that time with John, and then seeing him remaining behind in the room where the servants were, asked him if he was not one of the friends of Jesus. It is probable that she had no design of injuring him, but simply wondered at his remaining there while John had passed in. She said, “Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean.” Thou “also” or as well as John was with him, then why do you shrink or refuse to go in with him? It does not seem that Peter was at any time this night in any particular danger. “But he denied before them all.” In his denial he said, “I know not what thou sayest.” He denied that he was a disciple of Jesus; this was a bold and shameful act; he denied that he understood what was said. Perhaps he was permitted to waver that he might see that none should dare to trust in his own strength.

And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him.-Parallels of this are found in Mar 14:69-72; Luk 22:58-62; and Joh 18:25-27. Peter went out into the porch, that is, the small room btween the doorway and the larger rooms; he was in a fearful state; he could not bear the looks of those around the fire and he went away to hide his confusion. The cock crowed for midnight. Another maid saw him, and Luke records that a man spoke to him at the same moment; this occurred between one and two o’clock in the morning. The scene of the trial had gone on. Peter was engaged in watching its progress. We may suppose that his mind was confused by the strange meekness and submission of Jesus. This maiden said, “This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” “And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man.” These were the very words in which Jesus had predicted his denial. (Luk 22:34.) Peter denied all knowledge of Jesus, whether as the Christ or as Jesus; he cut himself loose from him for a time by his denial. It appears that two maidens and a man at the same place recognized him at once and accused him of being one of the disciples of Jesus; to them all Peter denied with an oath, a very convincing proof that he was not a disciple of Jesus as he thought.

And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them.-This was about an hour after, or between two and three o’clock in the morning. Peter was now desperate, angry, and filled with evil passions and returned to the room where the fire was burning, resolved to stick to his denial. (Joh 18:25.) The repetition of sin never leaves a man as it found him; he changed rapidly; Peter lost his shame; his Master was condemned, and he had lost something of his love, and in the consequences of ruin to all his earthly hopes he denied knowing Jesus and emphasized his denial by cursing and swearing. Proof was given that he was one of the disciples of Jesus as “thy speech maketh thee known.” The dialect of the Galileans was recognized and distinguished them from others. A kinsman of Malchus observed him, and, with others, urged on him this peculiarity, as a reason for supposing him to be a follower of Jesus. Peter was in great fear and also in bitter anger. He began to anathematize himself, and to swear with oaths that he had no acquaintance with Jesus. Peter does not seem to have been in any danger; the Pharisees showed no desire to injure him or the other disciples of Jesus; the matter does not seem to have been urged in anger against him. Peter, like the wicked, was in fear where no fear was. (Psa 53:5.) Perhaps Peter never forgot this dreadful night. It was now three o’clock in the morning. Luke records that Jesus turned and “looked” upon Peter; the cocks at the same moment crew. Won by the look of tender compassion, and reminded of the prophecy of his fall, the mysterious foreknowledge of Jesus flashed again upon him. The spell of evil was broken, “and he went out, and wept bitterly.”

Neither of the four writers of the gospel manifests the least desire to suppress the sad fall of Peter. Mark says, “And when he thought thereon, he wept” (Mar 14:72), while Matthew records that he “wept bitterly.” Luke records that “he went out, and wept bitterly.” (Luk 22:62.) It is remarkable that John, who records the denial, omits any record of his repentance. However, we know that he did repent. Peter might well shed bitter tears even though his denial was only a sin of infirmity. The frankness and honesty of the historians are to he observed; not one of them attempts to suppress this shameful act of Peter he was committed with the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” but with fairness and integrity the writers record his denial. When Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote, Peter was still alive; in fact, Mark probably wrote under the direction of Peter. No impostors would have recorded this event.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Chapter 83

Peters Fall and Restoration

Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

(Mat 26:69-75)

Here is a picture of Gods servant Peter which is both humbling and instructive. The fall of Peter is set before us as a beacon. It has many warnings and many lessons for us. Any careful reader of Gods Word cannot fail to notice that Peters fall is recorded at considerable length by all four of the gospel writers. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were inspired to write out the details of this sad event. Yet, not one of them offers a word of excuse or explanation in defense of their friend and brother. This is one of those things which indirectly demonstrates the truthfulness of Holy Scripture. If the Bible were nothing but the compositions of men, it would never have been written that the great apostle to the Jews was so weak and sinful that he shamefully denied his Lord and Master.

This story of Peters fall was written by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit for our learning and admonition. May the Spirit of God, who gave us this story four times, now inscribe its lessons upon our hearts by his almighty grace, for Christs sake.

The Solemn Night

Try to picture that cold, bitter night, if you can. It was a most solemn occasion. The disciples had just eaten the Lords Supper. The Lord Jesus had told his disciples plainly of his betrayal by Judas, his death as their Substitute, and the fact that all of them would forsake him. On this evening our Lord preached the message that is recorded in John 14 through 16. On this evening his disciples heard him offer up that great prayer of intercession as our Great High Priest that is recorded in John 17. Peter, James, and John had spent the evening with the Son of God in the Garden of Gethsemane. The soldiers came to arrest the Master. Judas betrayed the Son of God with a kiss. Peter risked his life to defend his Lord. Then, Peter denied him three times.

Why do you suppose that this record is given four times? Why were each of the evangelists inspired to tell the same sad story in such detail? Surely the Holy Spirit means for us to give it special attention. Here are four things that appear to me to be obvious reasons why so much attention is given to Peters fall.

1.Peters denial of the Lord Jesus must have greatly increased the pain and grief of our Saviors sufferings.

2.The Holy Spirit here sits before us in a most emphatic way both the power and the immutability of Gods saving grace.

3.The divine Comforter knew that we would all be subject to the same temptations by which Peter was overcome.

4.Without a doubt, this fourfold record of Peters fall is intended by God to be an instructive lesson for us concerning the frailty of the very best of men.

The Word of God does not tell us much even about the best of those men who lived in Bible times. The history of Gods saints is scanty. Yet, the Bible very particularly and meticulously records the faults of Gods elect. It seems that the Holy Spirit goes out of his way to remind us that the very best of men are only men at best. Peter was not the infallible bishop of Rome, as the papist pretend. He was a frail, fickle, fallible, sinful man. The only thing the pope has in common with Peter is his denial of Christ.

Peters fall seems to say to each of us: You, too, are weak. You, too, will fall if left to yourself. Do not trust yourself. Trust Christ entirely. Lean on him incessantly. Do not rely upon your great experiences or the imaginary strength and firmness of your faith. Satan has desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. Christ alone can hold you up. Christ alone can keep you. As we care for our souls and the honor of our God, let us never cease to be prayerfully watchful over our souls, ever seeking grace from God to keep us from the evil that is in us.

All who know Gods saving grace in Christ want to magnify and honor their Lord in this world. We want to live for the honor and glory of Christ. Our hearts shudder and tremble at the thought of bringing reproach upon the name of our blessed Redeemer. Yet, we know that unless the Lord himself preserves us, we will surely profane his name.

The Circumstances

Soberly think about the circumstances of Peters fall. We are not considering the fall of a lost hypocrite or an apostate. Peter was not a lost man, but a saved man, even when he fell. Not only was he a saved man, he was an apostle of Christ, a gospel preacher, a man who truly loved the Lord Jesus. Peter was a true believer, a child of grace, pardoned and accepted in Christ. He was a man of strong faith, firm conviction, and unrelenting zeal. But he was a man, just like you and me, a man whose heart was by nature full of sin. On this particular night the evil of his heart broke out in an unrestrained, blasphemous denial of Christ, a denial that was accompanied with foul oaths.

As we consider the circumstances of Peters great fall, you will notice that there were no extenuating circumstances to excuse his guilt. In fact, there appears to have been no reason for it at all. Everything recorded about it only aggravates Peters guilt in the matter.

Peters fall seems very strange because he was one of the Lords most highly favored and highly honored disciples. We would have expected this from any of the disciples before we would have expected it from Peter. The Lord had done so much for Peter. Peter was one of the very first men to whom the Lord Jesus revealed himself in this world, one of the first to be saved by the power of his grace (Joh 1:40-42) He was in the inner circle of the Masters friends. He appears to have been the chief spokesman for the early church.

Let all who are highly honored of God in this world be warned. The greater our privileges and the higher our honors, the greater our responsibilities are and the more horrible our offenses.

Peters fall is especially sad because he had been plainly and faithfully warned of his great danger. The Savior told Peter exactly what was going to happen to him in the plainest terms possible. He knew the danger to which he was exposing himself when he walked into the high priests palace (Mat 26:31; Luk 22:31-34). Satan desired to have him. His faith would be fiercely attacked. He must watch and pray that he enter not into temptation. But Peter walked headlong into his sin, rejecting the light and counsel God had given him. He ignored the light of Gods revelation

Peters guilt is aggravated by the fact that it came so soon after he had confidently declared his loyalty and faithfulness to Christ, at least implying that he was confident that he was more loyal and dependable than any of his brethren. Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offendedPeter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples (Mat 26:33-35). Just an hour or two after making this bold and arrogant profession of love and commitment to Christ, Peter cussed and denied that he even knew him!

The Apostles fall did not come at once, but by degrees. Great, life-threatening sicknesses seldom come upon men without warning. Usually there are symptoms to warn us that something is wrong. Even so, believers seldom experience sudden falls into grave sin. Usually there are symptoms that something is wrong. The problem is that we ignore the symptoms. J. C. Ryle wrote

The Church and the world are sometimes shocked by the sudden misconduct of some great professor of religion; believers are discouraged and stunned; the enemies of God rejoice and blaspheme: but if the truth could be known, the explanation of such cases would generally be found to have been private departure from God. Men fall in private long before they fall in public. J. C. Ryle

Notice that the Holy Spirit records a specific series of steps by which this man of great, remarkable faith descended into such a low condition. He was far too confident and proud (Mat 26:31-33). The Lord told him to watch and pray. Instead, he slept! He followed the Lord afar off (Mat 26:58). He chose to sit with scorners (Mat 26:58; Luk 22:55; Joh 18:18). He denied his Master by degrees (Mar 14:68-71). At first, he pretended not to understand the maidens words. Then, he denied that he knew the man (a denial of his own confession Mat 16:18; Joh 6:69). At last, he took up the oaths of a profane man, cussing as he denied his Redeemer, as if to prove his point by foulness.

There are many, many ways by which men and women deny the Lord Jesus Christ; but usually the falls of Gods saints are not sudden. Normally, great falls are preceded by much smaller inconsistencies. And it takes very little to make a great saint fall into great sin, if God leaves him to himself. Peters trial was nothing but the word of a weak young woman, who said, Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.

Here is another aggravation of Peters terrible sin: All of this was done very close to the place where his Lord and Master was at that very time suffering for him! The Lord Jesus was standing right before Peters eyes, hearing every word!

Some Reasons

How can we account for all of this? How did such a great man come to commit such a grievous evil? I remind you, Peter was not a lost man, but a saint, a child of God, redeemed by blood, justified in Christ, saved by grace, and sanctified by the Spirit. Peter was in the tenor of his life a faithful giant among faithful giants. Few before him, and few after him could stand shoulder to shoulder with him. He was a man strong in faith, firm in conviction, bold in preaching, and unrelenting in his zeal for Christ.

This man was eminent, even among the Apostles, a leader among leaders, an example among examples. How did this man, so great, so unique in so many ways come to commit such a horrible offense? This man, great as he was, was just a man. Like you and me, he was a man whose heart by nature was full of sin, whose flesh was weak. Peter was far too proud of himself, far too confident of his own strength. He was overcome by the fear of man; in this case, by the fear of a woman, who had no obvious power against him. He neglected watchfulness over his own heart and soul (Pro 4:23). And, I suspect that, like mother Eve, Peter had begun to doubt the Saviors word.

Peters Preservation

Peter fell; but he did not perish. His faith weakened; but it did not die. He sinned; but he was not cast off or forsaken. He denied the Lord; but the Lord did not deny him. Peter belonged to Christ; and Christ can never lose one of his own. The Good Shepherd can never lose one of his sheep. Peter fell; but Christ graciously raised him up.

It is written in the Scriptures, The righteous falleth seven times a day; but the Lord raiseth him up. Peter belonged to Christ. He was one of those sheep to whom the Son of God gave eternal life and promised, They shall never perish. Therefore, Peter was graciously preserved and restored by the hand of God. How did the Lord God restore his fallen child? Here are four things by which God graciously restored Peter. These are the very same things he uses to restore his fallen ones today.

First, the Savior performed a special work of providence to preserve his fallen. And immediately the cock crew (Mat 26:74). The Lord God has many ways to reach the hearts of his chosen. There are many roosters he can cause to crow to awaken his erring children. Psalms 107 describes many of them.

Second, there was a work of grace. Providence is made effectual only by the Lords work of grace in and upon the heart. The Lord turned and looked upon Peter (Luk 22:61). What a look that must have been! The Lord turned to Peter. Peter did not turn to the Lord. And he looked upon Peter, not in anger, disgust, and wrath, but in mercy, love, and grace! That look reflected all the tenderness, compassion, and faithfulness of Christ toward his fallen, sinful children. With that look, the Lord Jesus spoke silently, but effectually, to Peters heart. He seems to have said, Peter, I have loved you with an everlasting love. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. I have given to you eternal life; and you shall never perish. I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. Fear not, for I have redeemed thee. I, even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions. In me is thy righteousness found. I am thy strength. Return, return unto me and I will pardon. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Third, the Word of the Lord performed its work in Peter. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus (Mat 26:75). If we do not remember the Word that has been preached unto us, all is lost (1Co 15:2). We cannot escape the wrath of God if we let the gospel slip through our ears without effect (Heb 2:1-3). Yet, we are sure to do so, unless God the Holy Spirit be our Remembrancer. It was the Word of God, graciously and effectually brought home to Peters heart, that worked repentance in him.

We must never presume that the Word of God has no effect because it has no immediate effect upon the hearts of those who hear it (Isa 55:11; Ecc 11:1). Peter was not immediately restored by the Word he had heard, even when he was made to remember it. But he was restored. The Word of God never returns to him void.

Fourth, Luke tells us of the Saviors work as Peters Advocate and Intercessor. I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not (Luk 22:32). As a great High Priest and Intercessor, the Lord Jesus Christ prayed for Peters preservation in faith and restoration by grace, even before he fell! That same great High Priest is our Advocate on high. He intercedes for us now, and has interceded for us from eternity (1Jn 2:1-2).

These thoughts thrill my heart and flood my soul with joy, gratitude, and praise. The Lord Jesus Christ is full of tenderness and mercy. His compassions fail not. They are new every morning! Jesus Christ is a faithful Savior! If you are a true believer, you may be assured of this fact: Your sins will never separate you from your Savior! You never shall, for any reason or by any means, be separated from his love, banished from his presence, put outside his favor, lose his mercy, cease to be the object of his care, or fail to be kept by his saving power!

Peters Restoration

The Lords work for Peter and upon Peter was effectual. It accomplished its design. Peters heart was restored. Satan had run him through his sieve, but Peter lost nothing in the process but chaff. Thus Satan himself was used as an instrument of good for Peter.

Peters trial and his fall were not accidents. Satan ran Gods child through his rough sifter; but Peter lost. He came out of this thing a much better man than he was before, as is clearly displayed in Acts chapters 2 and 4. Even this tragic affair was under the control of Gods sovereign providence and according to his purpose of grace. The devil is Gods devil. That fiend of hell is the unwilling, unwitting vassal of the Almighty (Isa 14:12-27). The dragon of hell is as much included in all things working together for good to Gods elect as the angels of light (Rom 8:28).

Peter went out. Once the fire was restored in his soul, he no longer wanted or needed the fire, which the Lords enemies had kindled. He immediately forsook those who had turned his heart from his Lord.

As he went out of the place, Peter wept bitterly. Sin is no light thing to the regenerate soul. Convulsive weeping came upon Peter when he realized what he had done. He could not stand himself. His heart was crushed within him (Psa 51:17; 1Jn 1:9).

Then, at the time appointed, the Lord Jesus came to Peter, to convince Peter that his love for him was real (Joh 21:15-17; 1Jn 4:19).

Needed Lessons

Obviously, there are some lessons in this sad piece of history that we need to learn, lessons we ought to ask God the Holy Spirit to graciously apply to our hearts. Remembering Peters fall, let us learn something about ourselves. We are all too much like Peter. We are fickle, sinful wretches by nature. There is no evil in the world of which you and I are not capable. Let us not be presumptuous, proud, and self-confident; but watch and pray (1Co 4:7; 1Co 10:12). Knowing that we are such sinful creatures ourselves, we should never be severe with our erring, fallen brethren.

Here we are again reminded that, Salvation is of the Lord. From start to finish, salvation is by the grace of God alone. Our only standing, our only acceptance, our only righteousness is Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. Gods grace is free and immutable. It is effectual and indestructible. Bless his name, Gods grace is sufficient! What blessed security our souls have in Christ! Nothing can ever severe us from our Savior. Once in Christ, in Christ forever! All who are saved by grace are kept infallibly secure in Christ. All who are in Christ are as secure as the very throne of God (Joh 10:26-30).

We are secure because God our Savior is faithful (2Ti 2:13-14). His grace is sure (Mar 16:7). The Lord Jesus Christ will not leave his own; and he will not let his own leave him (Jer 32:38-40). He abideth faithful! Even in the teeth of our most horrible sins against him, the Son of God urges us to confidently trust him. It was in anticipation of this very fall that the Lord Jesus said to Peter, Let not your heart be troubled: Ye believe in God, believe also in me (Joh 13:38 to Joh 14:3).

Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. Cling to Christ always. As often as you fall, return quickly to your Savior. He will receive you. He has forgiven you. He will be gracious to you. He will forget your fall.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

The King Denied by his Disciple

Mat 26:69-70. Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.

While our Lord was in the high priest’s house, Peter sat without in the palace. In the courtyard overlooked by the rooms of the palace, the servants and officers had lighted a fire to warm themselves while they waited to see what would be done with Jesus.

Peter joined the company, and a damsel, who had let him in at John’s request, said to him, “Thou also wast with all saying, “I know not what thou sayest.” Whatever the consequences of confessing Christ might have been to Peter, they could not have been as bad as this base denial was.

Mat 26:71-72. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the

There were so many who had seen Peter with Christ that he was easily recognized as one of the companions of the Nazarene. His second denial differed from the first, in that he added an oath to the lie, and declared concerning Christ, “I do not know the man.” Perhaps the oath was meant to prove that he was no follower of him who said, “Swear not at all;” or it may have been a return to Peter’s old habit before his conversion. When once a child of God gets on the dowwnward road, no man can tell how fast and how far he will fall unless almighty grace be vouchsafed to him.

Mat 26:73. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.

Even when Peter swore, there was something of the brogue of Galilee in his utterance, so that these people in Jerusalem detected his provincial dialect, and said to him, “Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee” If a child of God begins to swear, he will not do it as the ungodly do, and he will be sure to be found out.

Mat 26:74-75. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Lying led to swearing, and swearing to cursing; no one but the Lord knows how much further Peter would have fallen if he had not been divinely arrested in his sinful career. Many men heard the cock crow that morning; but to Peter it carried a solemn reminder of his Lord’s prophetic warning, “Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.” There was something else that affected Peter more than the crowing of the cock. Luke tells us that “The Lord turned, and looked upon Peter.” Peter must have looked up at the Lord or he would not have seen that look of sorrow, pity, love, and forgiveness that the Lord gave him, ere he went out and wept bitterly.

If any one of us has denied the Lord that bought him, let him look up to him who now looks down from heaven, ready to pardon the backslider who cries with the returning prodigal, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.” This same Peter, when reinstated in his Lord’s favour, preached on the day of Pentecost the sermon that led to the conviction and conversion of thousands of his hearers.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

Peter: Mat 26:58, 1Ki 19:9, 1Ki 19:13, Psa 1:1, Mar 14:66-68, Luk 22:55-57, Joh 18:16, Joh 18:17, Joh 18:25, 2Pe 2:7-9

Jesus: Mat 26:71, Mat 2:22, Mat 2:23, Mat 21:11, Joh 1:46, Joh 7:41, Joh 7:52, Act 5:37

Reciprocal: Gen 12:13 – thou Exo 38:8 – assembling Pro 25:26 – General Pro 29:25 – fear Isa 57:11 – of whom Dan 11:35 – some Mat 14:30 – when Mar 14:30 – before Luk 22:56 – a certain maid Joh 12:42 – lest Joh 13:38 – The cock Rom 3:7 – if the truth Gal 2:12 – fearing Gal 6:1 – overtaken 1Pe 3:6 – and

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

6:69

Sat without in the palace We should remember that the present session of the Sanhedrin was held in the headquarters of the high priest (verse 57). Palace is a somewhat indefinite word in the Bible, but a common view of it is a building surrounded with an uncovered court. Sometimes the word is used to designate the building only, and at others it means the courtyard around it; the session of the Sanhedrin was held in the building. Peter sat without in the palace means he was out in the courtyard of the palace. The text does not tell us why the damsel asked Peter the question, but the same thing was asked him by another damsel, and still one of the crowd asked this question. All of them received the same negative answer, hence it is reasonable to conclude it was a part of the Lord’s plan to bring about the threefold denial that was predicted in verse 34. This question about Peter’s being with, Jesus and the cowardly denial is significant, and shows that the fact of association with another makes him a partaker of whatever he is doing. (See Rom 1:32.) Of course Jesus was not doing anything wrong, and if Peter had been true to his profession so strongly expressed in verses 33-35, he would gladly have admitted his friendly association with the Lord and rejoiced in sharing in his persecutions. (See Act 5:41.)

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

THESE verses relate a remarkable and deeply instructive event, the apostle Peter’s denial of Christ. It is one of those events, which indirectly prove the truth of the Bible. If the Gospel had been a mere invention of man, we should never have been told that one of its principal preachers was once so weak and erring, as to deny his Master.

The first thing that demands our notice, is the full nature of the sin of which Peter was guilty.

It was a great sin. We see a man, who had followed Christ for three years, and been forward in professing faith and love towards Him,-a man who had received boundless mercies, and loving-kindness, and been treated by Christ as a familiar friend,-we see this man denying three times that he knows Jesus!-This was bad.-It was a sin committed under circumstances of great aggravation. Peter had been warned plainly of his danger, and had heard the warning. He had just been receiving the bread and wine at our Lord’s hand, and declaring loudly that though he died with Him, he would not deny Him!-This also was bad.-It was a sin committed under apparently small provocation. Two weak women make the remark that he was with Jesus. Those that stood by say, “Surely thou art one of them.” No threat seems to have been used. No violence seems to have been done. But it was enough to overthrow Peter’s faith. He denies before all. He denies with an oath. He curses and swears.-Truly it is a humbling picture!

Let us mark this history, and store it up in our minds. It teaches us plainly that the best of saints are only men, and men encompassed with many infirmities. A man may be converted to God, have faith, and hope, and love towards Christ, and yet be overtaken in a fault, and have awful falls. It shews us the necessity of humility. So long as we are in the body, we are in danger. The flesh is weak, and the devil is active. We must never think, “I cannot fall.” It points out to us the duty of charity towards erring saints. We must not set down men as graceless reprobates, because they occasionally stumble and err. We must remember Peter, and “restore them in the spirit of meekness.” (Gal 6:1.)

The second thing that demands our notice, is the series of steps by which Peter was led to deny his Lord.

These steps are mercifully recorded for our learning. The Spirit of God has taken care to have them written down for the perpetual benefit of the Church of Christ. Let us trace them out one by one.

The first step to Peter’s fall, was self-confidence. He said, “though all men should be offended, yet will I never be offended.”-The second step was indolence. His Master told him to watch and pray. Instead of doing so, he slept.-The third step was cowardly compromising. Instead of keeping close to his Master, he first forsook him, and then “followed him afar off.”-The last step was needless venturing into evil company. He went into the priest’s palace, and “sat with the servants,” like one of themselves.-And then came the final fall,-the cursing, the swearing, and the three-fold denial. Startling as it appears, his heart had been preparing for it. It was the fruit of seeds which he himself had sown. “He ate the fruit of his own ways.”

Let us remember this part of Peter’s history. It is deeply instructive to all who profess and call themselves Christians. Great illnesses seldom attack the body, without a previous train of premonitory symptoms. Great falls seldom happen to a saint, without a previous course of secret backsliding. The church and the world are sometimes shocked by the sudden misconduct of some great professor of religion. Believers are discouraged and stumbled by it. The enemies of God rejoice and blaspheme. But if the truth could be known, the explanation of such cases would generally be found to have been private departure from God. Men fall in private, long before they fall in public. The tree falls with a great crash, but the secret decay which accounts for it, is often not discovered till it is down on the ground.

The last thing that demands our notice is the sorrow which Peter’s sin brought upon him. We read at the end of the chapter, “He went out and wept bitterly.”

These words deserve more attention than they generally receive. Thousands have read the history of Peter’s sin, who have thought little of Peter’s tears, and Peter’s repentance. May we have an eye to see, and a heart to understand!

We see in Peter’s tears, the close connection between unhappiness and departure from God. It is a merciful arrangement of God, that in one sense holiness shall always be its own reward. A heavy heart, and an uneasy conscience, a clouded hope, and an abundant crop of doubts, will always be the consequence of backsliding and inconsistency. The words of Solomon describe the experience of many an inconsistent child of God, “The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways.” (Pro 14:14.) Let it be a settled principle in our religion, that if we love inward peace, we must walk closely with God.

We see in Peter’s bitter tears, the grand mark of difference between the hypocrite and the true believer. When the hypocrite is overtaken by sin, he generally falls to rise no more. He has no principle of life within him to raise him up.-When the child of God is overtaken, he rises again by true repentance, and by the grace of God amends his life.-Let no man flatter himself that he may sin with impunity, because David committed adultery, and because Peter denied his Lord. No doubt these holy men sinned greatly. But they did not continue in their sin. They repented greatly. They mourned over their falls. They loathed and abhorred their own wickedness. Well would it be for many, if they would imitate them in their repentance, as well as in their sins. Too many are acquainted with their fall, but not with their recovery. Like David and Peter, they have sinned, but they have not, like David and Peter, repented.

The whole passage is full of lessons that ought never to be forgotten. Do we profess to have a hope in Christ? Let us mark the weakness of a believer, and the steps that lead to a fall.-Have we unhappily backslidden, and left our first love? Let us remember that the Saviour of Peter still lives. There is mercy for us as well as for him. But we must repent, and seek that mercy, if we would find it. Let us turn unto God, and He will turn to us. His compassions fail not. (Lam 3:22.)

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

FIRST DENIAL; Mat 26:69-70.

Mat 26:69. Now Peter was sitting without in the court, the interior court enclosed by the house. Mark: below in the court, i.e. below the room (probably on the ground-floor) where the examination was going on. If this room were open towards the court, as was sometimes the case, then Peter could see something of the trial. John tells (Mat 18:15-16) how he gained admission. But warming ones self with Christs enemies has its dangers.

A maid. Mark: one of the maids of the high-priest, probably the one who kept the door, mentioned by John, since he connects with this denial Peters standing by the fire in the court, expressly mentioned by Mark and Luke. But two maid-servants may have made a similar charge on this occasion.

Jesus the Galilean. Probably contemptuous banter, or light ridicule, not with a view to serious accusation. The maid seems to have followed him into the court, repeating the banter, which he repelled in the different words recorded by the different Evangelists.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

This last paragraph of the chapter gives us an account of the fall and rising of Peter, of his sin in denying Christ, and of his recovery by a speedy and severe repentance. Both must be considered distinctly.

First, As touching his sin and fall, there are four particulars observable, namely, the sin itself, the occasion of that sin, the reiteration and repetition of it, and the aggravating circumstances attending it.

Observe, 1. The sin itself, the denial of Christ, I know not the man; a manifest untruth: next he adds an oath to confirm that untruth; he swore that he knew not the man.

And, last of all, he wished an horrid curse and imprecation upon himself, that is, he wished himself excommunicated and cast out of the church, say some: he wished himself eternally separated from the presence of God, say others: he wished in effect that the devil might take him, if he were acquainted with Jesus. The inordinate love of life, and slavish fear of sufferings and death, may draw the best of men to commit the worst of sins.

Observe, 2. The occasions of this sin, and they were three: his following Christ afar off; his being in bad company, amongst Christ’s enemies; and his presumptuouss confidence of his own strength and standing.

1. His following of Christ afar off. To follow Christ is the work of faith, and fruit of love; but to follow him afar off, was the effect of fear and frailty. Woe unto us, when a temptation comes, if we be far off from Christ’s presence and assistance.

2. His being in wicked company among Christ’s enemies. O Peter, thou hadst better have been a-cold by thyself alone, than sitting by a fire encompassed with the blasphemies of the wicked: where thy conscience, though not seared, was yet made hard. The way to escape prevailing temptations to sin is to shun such places, and to avoid such companions, as in all probability will invite and draw us into sin.

3. Confidence of his own strength and standing was another occasion of Peter’s falling. Pride and presumptuous confidence have been ever the fore-runners and occasions of a fall.

O Lord! to presume upon ourselves is the ready way to provoke thee to leave us to ourselves: if ever we stand in the day of trial, it is the fear of falling must enable us to stand. Not only they who go forth in the strength of nature, but also they who go forth in the strength of inherent grace, may quickly fall from their own stedfastness.

Observe, 3. The reiteration and repetition of his sin. He denies him a first, a second, and a third time. He denies him first with a lie, then with an oath, and after all with an anathema and a curse. O how dangerous is it not to resist the first beginnings of sin! If we yield to one temptation, Satan will assault us with more and stronger. Peter proceeded from a bare denial, first to perjury, then to cursing and imprecation.

Observe, 4. The aggravating circumstances attending this sin of Peter, and they are these:

1. The character of the person thus falling: a disciple, an apostle, a chief apostle, a special favourite; who, with James and John, had the special honour to be with Christ upon mount Tabor; Peter, who had preached and prophesied in Christ’s name, cast out devils, and wrought miracles by Christ’s power, yet he denies him.

2.Consider the person whom he denies: his Master, his Saviour, and Redeemer; he that had washed Peter’s feet but a little before; that eat the passover with Peter, and gave the sacrament to Peter; yet this kind and condescending Saviour was denied by Peter.

3. Consider before whom he denies him: in the company and presence of the chief priests, scribes, and elders, and their servants, who rejoiced at it, and were hardened by it; that one disciple should sell him for money, and another disciple deny him through fear.

4. Consider the time when he denied him; verily it was but a few hours after he had received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper from Christ’s own hand. How unreasonable then is their objection against coming to the Lord’s table, because some that go to it dishonour Christ as soon as they come from it! Such examples must not discourage us from coming to the ordinance, but excite and increase our watchfulness after we have been there, to take heed that the future conduct of our lives be suited to the solemnity of a sacramental table.

5. Consider the smallness of his temptation to deny Christ; a damsel only put the question to him, Art thou not one of his disciples? If a band of armed soldiers had appeared to him, and affrighted him, had he been terrified by the high priest’s threatenings, bound and led away to judgment, sentenced to an ignominious, painful death, some excuse might have been made for him: but to disown his relation to Christ at the question of a maid-servant that kept the door only, the smallness of the temptation was an aggravation of the crime! “Ah, Peter, how unlike thyself art thou at this time? Not a rock, but a reed; a pillar blown down by a woman’s breath! o frail humanity, whose strength is weakness and infirmity!”

Observe here, That in most of the saints’ falls recorded in scripture, either the first enticers, or the accidental occasions, were women. Thus in Adam’s, Lot’s, Samson’s, David’s Solomon’s, and Peter’s. A weak creature may be a strong tempter; nothing is too impotent or useless for the devil’s service. It was a great aggravation of Peter’s sin, that the voice of a maid, a doorkeeper only, should be stronger to overcome him than his faith in Jesus to sustain him. But what shall we say? Small things are sufficient to cast us down, if God doth not hold us up: we sink under any burden, if he sustain us not, and yield to every temptation, if he leave us to ourselves. A temptation, if he leave us to ourselves. A damsel shall then make a disciple shrink, and a doorkeeper is enough to drive an apostle before her. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the words of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly.

Here we have an account of St. Peter’s rising and recovery after his shameful fall, by a renewed act and exercise of repentance.

Where observe, The suddenness of his repentance, the means of his repentance, and the manner of it.

Observe, 1. The suddenness of his repentance: although his sin was great, yet his repentance was speedy and without delay.

From whence note, That sins committed by the surprisal of a sudden temptation, are much sooner repented of, than where the sin is presumptuous and deliberate sins; he continued a long time in them, and lived almost a twelve month without any solemn repentance of them. St. Peter’s sin was hasty and sudden, under a violent passion of fear, contrary to his settled purpose and resolution of constancy; and he takes the warning of the second crowing of the cock, and goes forth to express his repentance.

Observe, 2. The means of his repentance, which was twofold. Less principal, the crowing of the cock; more principal, Christ’s looking upon Peter, and Peter’s remembering the words of Christ.

1. The less principal means of St. Peter’s repentance, was the crowing of the cock: as the voice of the maid occasioned him to sin, so the voice of the cock occasioned him to repent.*

That God, who can work without means, doth sometimes work by weak and contemptible means, and when he pleases can open the mouth of a bird or beast for the for the conversion of a man. But why should our Saviour choose the crowing of a cock as a mean to bring St. Peter to repentance? There is ever some mystery in Christ’s instruments; the cock was a preacher to call Peter to repentance, there being something of emblem between the cock and a preacher. A true minister must have the wings of a cock to rouse up himself from security, and to awaken others to a sense of their duty. He must have the watchfulness of a cock, to be ever ready to discover and forewarn danger. He must have the voice of a cock, to cry aloud and tell Israel of their sin, and terrify the roaring lion, and make him tremble. In a word, he must observe the hours of the cock, to crow at all seasons of the night, to preach in season and out of season the glad tidings of salvation.

But, 2. The more principal means of St. Peter’s recovery, was, 1. Christ’s looking upon Peter. Christ first looks upon Peter with an eye of mercy, grace, and pity, before Peter looks upon his sin in order to repentance.

Here take notice of the greatness of Christ’s grace, of his wonderful love and mercy to his poor disciple. When our Saviour was upon his trial for his life, a time when our thoughts are wholly taken up about ourselves: even then did Christ find leisure to think upon Peter, remember to turn about, and give him a pitiful but piercing look; a look that melted his heart, and dissolved it into tears. We never begin to lament for sin, till we are first lamented by our Saviour. Jesus looked upon Peter. That is the first more principal means of Peter’s repentance.

The second is, Peter’s remembering the words of Christ, Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice. This remembrance of Christ’s words was an applicative and feeling remembrance of them. He remembered the prediction of Christ, and applies it sensibly to himself.

Teaching us, That the efficacy of Christ’s word, in order to the bringing of a soul unto repentance, depends not upon the historical remembrance of it, but upon the close application of it to every man’s conscience. A sanctified remembrance of Christ’s words, and our own sins, is an excellent preparative to repentance.

Observe lastly, The manner of Peter’s repentance: it was secret, he went out; it was sincere, he wept bitterly; it was lasting and abiding all the days of his life, and attended with an extraordinary zeal and forwardness for the service of Christ to the end of his life.

1. It was secret, he went out; Vere dolet, qui sine teste dolet. he sought a place of retirement where he might mourn in secret; he cannot well be thought to dissemble his grief, who chooses no other witness but the omnipresent God. Solitariness is most agreeable to an afflicted spirit; and as St. Peter’s sorrow caused him to go forth, so might also his shame. Christ looked upon Peter, but how ashamed must Peter be to look upon Christ, considering that he so lately denied to have ever seen him!

2. His repentance was sincere, he wept bitterly; his grief was extraordinary, and his tears abundant. There is ever a weeping that follows sin; sin must cost the soul sorrow, either here or in hell; we must mourn awhile, or lament for ever. Doubtless, with Peter’s tears there was joined hearty confession of sin to God, and smart reflections upon himself after this manner: “Lord, what have I done? I that did once acknowledge my master to be Christ the Son of the living God, have since denied him with oaths, curses, and imprecations. I that promised to lay down my life for his sake, have yet disowned and denied him at the voice of a damsel. O what unfaithfulness, what weakness, what wretchedness! O that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep all my days for the fault of this one night!”

Blessed, indeed, are the tears of a converted revolter, and happy is the very misery of a mournful offender.

3. This holy man’s repentance was lasting and abiding; he had a lively sense and remembrance of this sin upon his soul all his life. Ecclesiastical history reports, that ever after, when St. Peter heard the crowing of a cock, he fell upon his knees and mourned; others say, that he was wont to rise at midnight, and spend the time in penitent devotion between cock-crowing and day-light. And the Papists, who love to turn every thing into superstition, began that practice of setting a cock upon the top of towers, and steeples, and chimneys, to put the people in mind of this sin of Peter, and his repentance, by that signal.

Lastly, St. Peter’s repentance was attended with an extraordinary zeal and forwardness for the service of Christ to the end of his life. He had an earnest love towards Christ, Thou that knowest all things, knowest that I love thee: and as an evidence of it, he fed Christ’s sheep; for, in the Acts of the Apostles, we read of his extraordinary diligence to spread the gospel, and his travels in order thereunto are computed to be nine hundred and fifty miles: and the wisdom of God thought fit that this apostle should preach the gospel to the Jews, as St. Paul did to the Gentiles; that as he had joined with the Jews in denying and disowning Christ, so he should endeavour to persuade them to join with him in repentance, as he had joined with them in their sin. His sin was in some respect like theirs, therefore he is sent to preach the gospel to them, and his diligence therein is an undoubted proof and evidence of his repentance.

Have any of us fallen with Peter, though not with a formal abjuring, yet by a practical denying of him, let us go forth and weep with him; let us be more vigilant nd watchful over ourselves for the time to come: let us express more extraordinary love unto and zeal for Christ, more diligence in his service, and more concernedness for his honour and glory. This would be an happy improvement of this example. The Lord grant it may have that blessed effect. Amen.

*Reynolds on St. Peter’s Fall.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 26:69-70. Now Peter, &c. Our Lords trial in the high-priests palace, and Peters denying him, being contemporary events, either of them might be related first, as the historian might think most proper. Matthew and Mark describe the trial first, as being the principal fact, but Luke introduces it after Peters denials. John has preserved the exact natural order, for he begins with the first denial, because it happened immediately after Peter entered the palace; then gives the history of the trial, as the principal fact, and concludes with the subsequent denials. The apostles, no doubt, were in great consternation when their Master was apprehended, as appears from their forsaking him and fleeing. Some of them, however, recovering out of the panic that had seized them, followed the band at a distance, to see what the end would be. Of this number was Peter, and another disciple, whom John has mentioned without giving his name, and who, therefore, is generally supposed to have been John himself, it being his manner to speak of himself in the third person. See Joh 13:23; Joh 21:10. Matthew and Mark seem to differ in the account which they give of the place where Peter first denied his Master. Matthews words are, Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, &c. Mark says, Mar 14:66, the denial happened as Peter was beneath in the palace. To reconcile this difference, some suppose that the high- priests palace was built so as to form a court; that the fire at which the servants sat was lighted in the court; and that Jesus was examined in the porch, called by Matthew , and by Mark . Accordingly they think persons in the court might be said to have been () without, in the palace, that is, without in respect of the covered buildings; and () beneath in the palace with respect to the porch, which was higher than the level of the court. But it appears from Joh 18:25, that Peter was with the servants at the fire when he denied his Master the third time; and from Luk 22:61, that Jesus looked upon Peter just as he was pronouncing the words of the third denial. Our Lord, therefore, and his disciple, were not, the one in the court and the other in the porch of the palace during his trial, but they were together in one room, Jesus with his judges at the upper end of it, and Peter with the servants at the fire in the other. According to this disposition, Peter might be said to have been without in the hall, that is, without in relation to the crowd of judges, witnesses, and soldiers around Jesus; but in relation to the place where the council sat, he was beneath in the hall, a way of speaking common even in our own language. Further, John says, Mat 26:18, that Peter, after the first denial, stood with the officers at the fire; whereas Matthew and Luke tell us, when he first denied his Master he sat by the fire. It seems, the maids words had put him into such confusion, that before he answered her he rose from the seat which the servants had given him on his first coming in. Macknight. According to John, the maid who attacked Peter, was the damsel who kept the door. It seems, after having admitted him, she followed him to the fire, and spoke to him in an angry tone, having been informed that it was he who had cut off her fellow-servants ear, see Joh 18:26. Thou also wast with Jesus She meant when he was apprehended in the garden. This blunt attack threw Peter into such confusion, that he flatly denied his having any thing to do with Jesus, saying, I know not what thou sayest I do not understand what thou meanest by speaking to me in this manner. Here we see that apostle, who had formerly acknowledged his Master to be the Messiah, who was honoured with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and who had most confidently boasted of fortitude, and a firm attachment to him in the greatest dangers, proved a very coward upon trial.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Mat 26:69-75. Peters Denial (Mar 14:66-72*, Luk 22:56-62).Mt. still keeps closely to Mk., except that (as in Mat 26:34) he makes one cockcrow suffice. The second challenge (Mat 26:71) is from another maid (in Lk. a man), and is answered with an oath. Mt. also notes that it was Peters dialect that stamped him as a Galilean.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 69

Without; that is, without that part of the hall, appropriated to the priests and the prisoner, but still in the same apartment, as appears from Luke 22:55,61.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

26:69 {17} Now Peter {h} sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

(17) Peter by the wonderful providence of God, in being appointed to be a witness of all these things, is prepared to be an example of outstanding faithfulness through this experience of unbelief.

(h) That is, outside the place where the bishop sat, but not outside of the house, for afterward he went from there into the porch.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Peter’s denials of Jesus 26:69-75 (cf. Mar 14:66-72; Luk 22:55-62; Joh 18:15-18; Joh 18:25-27)

All four evangelists recorded three denials, but the details differ slightly.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Peter was warming himself near the fire in the center of the courtyard (Mar 14:66-67; Luk 22:55; Joh 18:18). The servant girl’s words expressed both curiosity and accusation. She referred to Jesus derogatorily as "the Galilean" (cf. Mar 14:67). Residents of Judea, and especially Jerusalem, regarded Galileans as inferior to themselves because Galilee was mainly rural. Evidently several people overheard her comment and may have joined in her questioning. Peter replied with words similar to a formal legal oath. [Note: Cf. Mishnah Shebuoth 8:3.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)